Economic Aspects of Endovascular Treatment of Pelvic Venous Disorders

Objective. To evaluate the economic costs of treating patients with a combination of left common iliac vein compression stenosis (LCIVCS) and pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI) using various endovascular techniques considering their clinical effectiveness. Material and methods. This retrospective cohort comparative study included 55 patients with hemodynamically significant LCIVCS and PVI. Primary stenting of the left common iliac vein (LCIV) was performed in 49 patients (Group 1), and primary left-sided ovarian vein embolization (OVE) was used in 6 patients (Group 2). The clinical outcome of primary stenting of the LCIV and OVE was assessed by recording the dynamics of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) using visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 days, 1, 3 and 6 months after the interventions. The financial costs of stenting of the LCIV, OVE and combined use of these two treatment methods were assessed individually. Results. After stenting of the LCIV, a significant reduction or complete resolution of chronic pelvic pain (before treatment: 8 [7—9] points; after 6 months: 1 [0—2] point; p=0.005) was noted in 69.4% of patients. The clinical effect of stenting was insignificant in 30.6% of patients and they underwent OVE. After primary OVE, no positive clinical effect was observed in 100% of cases, CPP persisted (before treatment: 7 [5—9] points; after 6 months: 7 [6—9] points; p=0.73). These patients underwent stenting of the LCIV, which was accompanied by a significant reduction in CPP. The personalized cost of treatment in the 1st group was 220 666.97 rubles, in the second — 316 517.46 rubles; when using primary stenting of the LCIV, the cost savings for the treatment of one patient amounted to 43.6%. Conclusions. Primary stenting of the LCIV in patients with a combination of the LCIVCS and PVI is the optimal treatment strategy in terms of clinical effectiveness and economic feasibility. The clinical effectiveness of isolated LCIV stenting is 69.4%, and financial savings — 43.6%.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Venous Disorders
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17116/flebo20262001116
Primary Topic
Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Economic Aspects of Endovascular Treatment of Pelvic Venous Disorders

A. N. Vasilyev, S.G. Gavrilov, S.V. Chubchenko
Journal of Venous Disorders
Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
article

Economic Aspects of Endovascular Treatment of Pelvic Venous Disorders

A. N. Vasilyev, S.G. Gavrilov, S.V. Chubchenko
article en

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the economic costs of treating patients with a combination of left common iliac vein compression stenosis (LCIVCS) and pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI) using various endovascular techniques considering their clinical effectiveness. Material and methods. This retrospective cohort comparative study included 55 patients with hemodynamically significant LCIVCS and PVI. Primary stenting of the left common iliac vein (LCIV) was performed in 49 patients (Group 1), and primary left-sided ovarian vein embolization (OVE) was used in 6 patients (Group 2). The clinical outcome of primary stenting of the LCIV and OVE was assessed by recording the dynamics of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) using visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 days, 1, 3 and 6 months after the interventions. The financial costs of stenting of the LCIV, OVE and combined use of these two treatment methods were assessed individually. Results. After stenting of the LCIV, a significant reduction or complete resolution of chronic pelvic pain (before treatment: 8 [7—9] points; after 6 months: 1 [0—2] point; p=0.005) was noted in 69.4% of patients. The clinical effect of stenting was insignificant in 30.6% of patients and they underwent OVE. After primary OVE, no positive clinical effect was observed in 100% of cases, CPP persisted (before treatment: 7 [5—9] points; after 6 months: 7 [6—9] points; p=0.73). These patients underwent stenting of the LCIV, which was accompanied by a significant reduction in CPP. The personalized cost of treatment in the 1st group was 220 666.97 rubles, in the second — 316 517.46 rubles; when using primary stenting of the LCIV, the cost savings for the treatment of one patient amounted to 43.6%. Conclusions. Primary stenting of the LCIV in patients with a combination of the LCIVCS and PVI is the optimal treatment strategy in terms of clinical effectiveness and economic feasibility. The clinical effectiveness of isolated LCIV stenting is 69.4%, and financial savings — 43.6%.

Journal of Venous DisordersVol. 20(1)
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.